Social Web Working Group Teleconference

19 Dec 2017

Attendees

Present: aaronpk, ajordan, ben_thatmustbeme, eprodrom, rhiaro, tantek, sandro, cwebber2
Regrets Chair: tantek
Scribe: sandro, cwebber2

eprodrom: I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about the main subject of our discussion today which is our note-track documents which we need to approve/disapprove for publication
... before we do those I'd like to cover our Rec-track documents and make sure the ones that have not gone out all the way..

websub

aaronpk: not a lot new since last week which is good
... I did actually meet with som Twitch developers yesterday
... they finished their websub api, and they were super excited the spec existed and that they could use it as a template for their API
... it often answered questions they didn't know they had, a good sign
... one aspect of it where I added a slight change to the text
... clarifying that hubs may set a default value for lease seconds
... it says the hubs can respect or not, is optional, they hadn't set a default value
... if a subscriber does not set a request lease seconds, hub can set a default lease duration

/s/lease seconds/lease seconds/

aaronpk: that added confusion for devs so I added it to the spec
... hopefully that's the version we'll publish as a Rec

eprodrom: fantastic!
... sandro, anything else to do for websub to go through?

sandro: afaik everything's good, trying to get confirmation
... we're well past the deadline for publishing in 2017 so we're just waiting

eprodrom: I'm not sure if I'm overstating it too much, but of what I think this group has done I think it's the broadest value, something to be proud of

<ben_thatmustbeme> websub++

<Loqi> websub has 2 karma in this channel (3 overall)

<sandro> +1 aaronpk !

eprodrom: on behalf of the group, aaronpk thanks a lot and thanks to you and julien for taking it all the way through
... can we move on to activitypub?

<ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme

activitypub

cwebber2: no new issues, no new news, i don't think there is anything to report or discuss, i think its just waiting on steps to REC status

tantek: we are waiting on the PR vote now
... when does that close?

sandro: Jan 2nd
... it would sure be great if we could get a few more votes on it

tantek: anything we should be concerned about

sandro: nope, only comment being on the coloring

tantek: where did we end on that?
... can you open an issue on that?

that way when the transition request goes through, each change has a documented issue

cwebber2: i don't think we had a resolution

tantek: we came to a consensus, thats worth citing in the issue

cwebber2: i'll deal with it today

tantek: i think that was the only change we made post PR, right?

cwebber2: I think so

sandro: is there anyone else we can get to approach about getting a vote?
... we really should have added a week or two to the deadline to account for the holidays

tantek: does anyone in the group think we should REQUEST an extensions on the PR vote deadline. and often that type of request is accepted

eprodrom: i just wanted to add my voice to say we extend it say 2 weeks in to january because of the holiday

tantek: does anyone object to requesting we extend the PR vote by 2 weeks?
... cwebber2 does that sound good to you as editor?

<ajordan> is there any reason we *wouldn't* do this?

cwebber2: yeah, it sounds like its good, i can't imagine any reason why it would be anything but good

tantek: hearing no objections, i'm going to declare consensus on that
... if for some reason you come up with other editorial fixed, file issues on them and we'll try to process them through github

worst case scenario, i will be available to chair on the 26th if we need to

scribe: i'm not expecting we will have anything, but if we do, i'll offer that

<cwebber2> scribenick: cwebber2

<ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick: cwebber2

JF2

<tantek> https://dissolve.github.io/jf2/

ben_thatmustbeme: no updates on JF2, no new issues, no changes since last week... just waiting for people to read it through and see if there are any problems

eprodrom: I wanted to ask on the JF2 we have a number of open issues

<tantek> note changes section: https://dissolve.github.io/jf2/#changes-from-26-oct-2017-wd-to-this-version

ben_thatmustbeme: for most of them I need to organize them, some of them I discussed offline
... most of them aren't responded and I need to flag as timeout effectively

<ajordan> yikes yeah sorry again for the long issues

<tantek> issues: https://github.com/dissolve/jf2/issues

eprodrom: there's definitely a slog to get through some of the comments... long multi-paragraph convos. from a process POV if we publish JF2 as a note today, how will the issues be addressed / get resolved?
... that's asking sandro more than that

tantek: good question, that's why we talked about maintenance last time

<ajordan> ah and I've just realized I never responded to the normative one :/

sandro: I was going to ask eprodrom to clarify, what seems unclear?

eprodrom: if we publish as a note, does that mean we won't resolve these issues? or will we say "ben can resolve issues and make editorial changes over some time period

"

sandro: I don't think there's a way to update the nope unless we have a new WG

<rhiaro> surely this is not a thing?

tantek: what we could do is resolve to do is assuming we publish it as a note today, we can resolve to allow editor to make editorial changes and update the note

sandro: we can make requests to publish until the WG is closed

<rhiaro> oh okay i thought you meant indefinitely

sandro: until Dec 31st

eprodrom: I assume we'd hand off to the SocialCG any future issues, etc?

sandro: I like the idea of the note somewhere fairly prominent saying "here's where we expect ongoing work to be happening"

eprodrom: right

tantek: so the default thing we discussed last time was to allow people to adjust ED in place

sandro: so note links to ED?

tantek: yes
... any note-track things link to the ED so we can say "here's informal updates" etc

sandro: they don't even need to say that, the top of the document says "here's the ED <link>"

tantek: yeah I think that's fine and provides the flexibility for the editor to choose where they want to work on it
... whether in the socialcg or somewhere else
... once we close the WG we can't publish it as a note, but we can use it as a CG report
... we do have the ED, and as long as the ED indicates "here's the official version at FOO location"
... if there aren't any other questions about JF2 I'd like to propose it published as a note

sandro: include something about publishing over next 10 days?

<tantek> PROPOSED: Publish jf2 as a NOTE

<sandro> +1

<ajordan> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1 obviously from me

<tantek> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<aaronpk> +1

+1

<rhiaro> +1

RESOLUTION: Publish jf2 as a NOTE

<tantek> https://github.com/dissolve/jf2/issues

ben_thatmustbeme: going through issues now, to see which ones have been resolved

<ajordan> ben_thatmustbeme: my finals are done Thursday so I can try to send some PRs, *maybe* before then but definitely after

ben_thatmustbeme: some of them, esp the longer ones from AJ need to be split out into separate issues, some of them have been handled as well
... I don't see any changes other than minor issues but I think we should split out the minor issues into new issues
... most of them are working with ajordan I think
... the only one I can see that would be normative is we discussed with references you have an embedded object beneath the main object you can maybe reference directly in the main object
... so you can say here it is but I can't guarantee it's correct

<ben_thatmustbeme> https://github.com/dissolve/jf2/issues/11

<tantek> https://github.com/dissolve/jf2/issues/11

<Loqi> [richardcarls] #11 Example 13: author card should be moved to references property

ben_thatmustbeme: when it a requirement that it must be a reference... I'm very hesitant because people are using it as-is

tantek: one labels we have on our issues is postpone to future version, I've been saying that for this is out of what can be done

ben_thatmustbeme: it's mostly for uniformity
... that's the only real difference

<ben_thatmustbeme> my head is so cloudy right now, still getting over sickness

ajordan: seems like what we're really discussing here is whether or not the spec can be more uniform or whether we want to have... it's really a minor nit, it doesn't matter a ton
... historically I'm not sure we've ever decided to break implementations, whatever

<ajordan> ben_thatmustbeme: hope you feel better. I'm just getting sick myself :/

tantek: alright, a couple of options, we could reject the request saying it would break existing implementations, or propose ???

ben_thatmustbeme: my preference is to reject it to say it'll break code

<eprodrom> LOUD TYPING

<tantek> PROPOSED: Resolve jf2 issue 11 with reject because it will break existing impls.

<ajordan> +1

<ajordan> eprodrom: the staple of this group

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<tantek> +1

<aaronpk> +1

+0 <- not breaking things is good but I don't know what's going on ;)

<rhiaro> same as cwebber

RESOLUTION: Resolve jf2 issue 11 with reject because it will break existing impls.

<rhiaro> !meme I have no idea what I'm doing

<Loqi>

ben_thatmustbeme: I think most are non-normative documentation or are long-winding convos best to postpone

<Loqi> ahaha

<ben_thatmustbeme> agreed with sandro

tantek: a volunteer for updates to jf2 notes?

<aaronpk> I can review

<aaronpk> I have a vested interest in jf2 :)

<tantek> PROPOSED: Allow editor to make non-normative changes to jf2 per issues, and with reviewer aaronpk approval (in issues), publish updated jf2 NOTEs until group close.

+1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<sandro> +1

<tantek> +1

<ajordan> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<rhiaro> +1

RESOLUTION: Allow editor to make non-normative changes to jf2 per issues, and with reviewer aaronpk approval (in issues), publish updated jf2 NOTEs until group close.

<eprodrom> +1

PTD

tantek: so I have updated PTD with resolutions to issues I thought were appropriate for the general scope of changes the group has been moving forward with
... I'll share the url.... *share*

<tantek> https://tantek.github.io/post-type-discovery/index-src.html

<tantek> https://tantek.github.io/post-type-discovery/index-src.html#change-log

<ajordan> tantek: there are two "to this version"s in the changelog

<tantek> https://github.com/tantek/post-type-discovery/issues

<Loqi> [rhiaro] #9 Use AS2 specific language for post types

tantek: there are a handful of issues waiting for commenter, some have been postponed / edited

eprodrom: a lot of them seem future development of PTD, do any seem normative for this version of PTD

tantek: probably the biggest normative changes are one change to add event type discovery because we had numerous implementations of that, and the other normative change is I added the as2 equivalents table
... documenting how to convert to AS2
... that's probably the biggest normative change requested per issue 9 and 15... was waiting for list of events
... linked to all those

<rhiaro> It's Announce

<ajordan> Announce

<ajordan> lol

tantek: that all went fine but I had one challenge with that... I could not find the AS2 equivalent to a repost

<Zakim> aaronpk, you wanted to request 30 more minutes for the call because we still have two specs to get to

<aaronpk> i'm stuck on mute

<aaronpk> that is all

eprodrom: aside from these items do you feel this is ready to go to Note as editor?

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: publish Post Type Discovery ED as a Note

+1

<eprodrom> +1

<ajordan> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<tantek> +1

RESOLUTION: publish Post Type Discovery ED as a Note

tantek: let's extend for 30 additional minutes

eprodrom: anything left to do on PTD?

tantek: potential non-normative issues, maybe I can do before the end of the group

<ajordan> tantek: is the intention to keep https://tantek.github.io/post-type-discovery/index-src.html#implementations?

<ajordan> definitely

<ajordan> https://github.com/tantek/post-type-discovery/issues/34 done

<Loqi> [strugee] #34 Move Implementations section to the W3C wiki

eprodrom: if we're there we should probably round it up and move on to the next doc, thanks for the work you've done on this tantek

<ben_thatmustbeme> i can review

tantek: we need a volunteer to review?

<ben_thatmustbeme> PROPOSED: Allow editor to make non-normative changes to PTD per issues, and with reviewer ben_thatmustbeme approval (in issues), publish updated PTD NOTEs until group close.

<ben_thatmustbeme> did i get that right?

<tantek> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<aaronpk> +1

+1

<ajordan> +1

RESOLUTION: Allow editor to make non-normative changes to PTD per issues, and with reviewer ben_thatmustbeme approval (in issues), publish updated PTD NOTEs until group close.

<ajordan> I'm queued

<Zakim> ajordan, you wanted to ask about Note publishing process, but we should probably vote on extending first

eprodrom: I don't think notes have the same level of IP scrutiny that rec-draft documents have

tantek: less than WD in fact

<rhiaro> https://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols/#changes-since-2017-05-04

Social Web Protocols

rhiaro: did a bunch of updates, I think it's ready to publish

tantek: are there any particular major changes which you think the group should look at?

rhiaro: profile section is mostly new, it's not big... also added authentication next ot the bit

tantek: profile section and authentication... ok
... anyone have any questions regarding the status of SWP/

?

<tantek> https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/issues

rhiaro: I think I'm going to close this one because a feature matrix would be huge and complicated, and the spec has changed a lot

<tantek> PROPOSED: Resolve SWP issue 17 as wont fix -- too much work

<tantek> +1

<aaronpk> +1

<ajordan> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<ajordan> wait

+1

<ajordan> so what happens to the existing matrix?

<ajordan> oh we're just resolving not to expand it basically?

<ajordan> +1

RESOLUTION: Resolve SWP issue 17 as wont fix -- too much work

<ben_thatmustbeme> !meme such echo

<Loqi>

<tantek> PROPOSED: Publish update to SWP as a NOTE with current editor's draft. https://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols/

<rhiaro> +1

<tantek> +1

<aaronpk> wait

+1

<aaronpk> what about the open PRs

<tantek> https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/pulls

tantek: do the PRs look good to you?

rhiaro: yes, looks fine

<aaronpk> https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/issues/56

<Loqi> [aaronpk] #56 Reference key related specs

tantek: is this an issue that can be resolved after the version we publish today?

aaronpk: not if it should get into this same note

<tantek> aaronpk, can we do #58 after we publish today?

<tantek> actually, aaronpk & rhiaro?

rhiaro: microformats is referenced throughout the document but I can add it to that section
... oauth I think maybe doesn't go as much on that list, I'll add microformats

aaronpk: I'd accept that

tantek: did you say you have a resolution on #56 you'd commit?

<rhiaro> correction: indieauth is already there

<tantek> PROPOSED: Publish update to SWP as a NOTE with current editor's draft https://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols/ with current pull requests https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/pulls and editor's resolution to issue #56

<aaronpk> +1

+1

<rhiaro> +1

<tantek> +1

<sandro> +1

<ajordan> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

RESOLUTION: Publish update to SWP as a NOTE with current editor's draft https://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols/ with current pull requests https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/pulls and editor's resolution to issue #56

<ajordan> rhiaro++

<Loqi> rhiaro has 167 karma in this channel (289 overall)

rhiaro: re: other issues, but I have a bunch of travel plans for the end of the month

<ajordan> I sent a patch with literally a single character change

<ajordan> it's not my fault!

aaronpk: where did you link it?

rhiaro: indieweb wiki, in bridging

aaronpk: why not link to wiki in related specifications section

rhiaro: sure

<tantek> Update to RESOLVED - include resolution to #58 per consensus

tantek: any other issues that need to be resolved for SWP since rhiaro says no updates after today?

<ajordan> can the CG take over SWP if rhiaro doesn't want to update it further?

<eprodrom> That makes sense

tantek: socialcg could do updates, but strongly suggest working with the editor

ajordan: I didn't mean is the CG allowed to but would rhiaro mind

tantek: we can deal with that later in the CG

indieauth

aaronpk: a few issues filed, reviewed document, they're addressed... good news is there's activity on it and it's better than it was 2 weeks ago

<aaronpk> https://indieauth.net/spec/

<Loqi> [Aaron Parecki] IndieAuth

eprodrom: glad to see there's been discussion/review of indieauth, seeing a number of issues/resolutions makes me more confidence in it as a note
... anything that might keep this from being published?

aaronpk: I believe everything in here have been implemented

eprodrom: some placeholders for test suite etc, but that's probably fine for note track?

<tantek> Issues link FWIW: https://github.com/indieweb/indieauth.net/issues

aaronpk: this is what people are using with micropub right now, it links to the other specs for future work / issues

tantek: any other questions about indieauth?
... sandro, do we need to do anything special to publish a note for the first time?

sandro: I don't think so, the process is the same, which is we need permission for Phillipe, which we need for notes too

tantek: can I ask you to ask phillipe?

sandro: we probably want to wait for all these Dec 31st changes, right?

tantek: if there are no other questions for indieauth, let's go to a proposal

<tantek> PROPOSED: Publish IndieAuth note from https://indieauth.net/spec/

<Loqi> [Aaron Parecki] IndieAuth

<tantek> oops

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<ajordan> +0.5

<aaronpk> +1

<tantek> PROPOSED: Publish IndieAuth note from https://indieauth.net/spec/

<Loqi> [Aaron Parecki] IndieAuth

<tantek> +1

+0

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<ajordan> +0.5

<ben_thatmustbeme> +a banana

<sandro> +0.5

RESOLUTION: Publish IndieAuth note from https://indieauth.net/spec/

<Loqi> [Aaron Parecki] IndieAuth

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> congrats to all \o/

<aaronpk> 🎉

<ben_thatmustbeme> socialwg++

<Loqi> socialwg has 1 karma

<tantek> socialwg++

<Loqi> socialwg has 2 karma

eprodrom: look forward to talking to everyone in the CG tomorrow

<eprodrom> tantek: thanks for chairing, one last time!

<ajordan> thanks all! it has truly been an honor

<ben_thatmustbeme> thank you everyone

bye+

trackbot, end meeting

<aaronpk> fin.

socialwg++

<Loqi> socialwg has 3 karma

<ben_thatmustbeme> :wq

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2017-12-05-minutes as the minutes for 05 Dec 2017 teleconference
Publish jf2 as a NOTE
Resolve jf2 issue 11 with reject because it will break existing impls.
Allow editor to make non-normative changes to jf2 per issues, and with reviewer aaronpk approval (in issues), publish updated jf2 NOTEs until group close.
publish Post Type Discovery ED as a Note
Allow editor to make non-normative changes to PTD per issues, and with reviewer ben_thatmustbeme approval (in issues), publish updated PTD NOTEs until group close.
Resolve SWP issue 17 as wont fix -- too much work
Publish update to SWP as a NOTE with current editor's draft https://w3c-social.github.io/social-web-protocols/ with current pull requests https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/pulls and editor's resolution to issue #56
Publish IndieAuth note from https://indieauth.net/spec/

So long...

... and thanks for all the SocialWG

Socialwg/2017-12-19-minutes

Social Web Working Group Teleconference

19 Dec 2017

Attendees

Contents

websub

activitypub

JF2

PTD

Social Web Protocols

indieauth

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

So long...